Read this article and then answer the questions
below.
Games people play at meetings
DO YOU ever feel as though you spend all your time in meet- ings
Henry Mintzberg, in his book The Nature of Managerial Work, found that in
large organisations managers spent 22 per cent of their time at their desk, 6
per cent on the telephone, 3 per cent on other activities, but a whopping 69 per
cent in meetings. There is a widely-held but mis- taken belief
that meetings are for "solving problems" and "’making decisions". For a start,
the number of people attending a meeting tends to be inversely pro- portional to
their collective abil- ity to reach conclusions and make decisions. And these
are the least important elements. Instead hours are devoted to
side issues, playing elaborate games with one another. It seems, therefore, that
meetings serve some purpose other than just making decisions.
All meetings have one thing in common: role-playing. The most formal role is
that of chairman. He (and it is usually a he) sets the agenda, and a good
chairman will keep the meeting running on time and to the point. Sadly, the
other, informal, role-players are often able to gain the upper hand. Chief is
the "constant talker", who just loves to hear his or her own voice.
Then there are the "can’t do" types who want to maintain the status quo.
Since they have often been in the organisation for a long time. they fi’equently
quote historical experience as a ploy to block change: "lt won’t work, we tried
that in 1984 and it was a disaster." A more subtle version of the "’can’t do"
type, the "yes, but... ", has emerged recently. They have learnt about the need
to sound positive, but they still can’t bear to have things change. Another
whole sub-set of charac- ters arc people who love meet- ings and want them to
continue until 5.30pro or beyond. Irrelewmt issues are their
special- ity. They need to call or attend meetings, either to avoid work, or to
justify their lack of perfur- mance, or simply because they do not have enough
to do. Then there are the "counter- dependents", those who
usually disagree with everything that is said, particularly if it comes from the
chairman or through consen- sus from the group. These people need to fight
authority in what- ever form. Meetings can also provide
attenders with a sense of identifi- cation of their status and power. In this
casc, managers arrange meetings as a means of commu- nicating to others the
boundaries of their exclusive club who is "in", and who is not.
A popular game is pinching someone else’s suggestions. This is where someone,
usually junior or female, makes an interesting suggestion early in the meeting
which is not picked up. Much later, the game is played, usually by some more
senior figure who propounds thc idea as his own. The suggestion is of course
iden- tified with the player rather than the initiator. Because
so many meetings end in confusion and without a decision, another more commu-
nal game is played at the end of meetings, called rcaching a false consensus.
Since it is important for the chairman to appear successful in problem-solving
and making u decision, the group reaches a false consensus. Everyone is happy,
having spent their time productively. The reality is that the decision is so
ambiguous that it is never acted upon, or, if it is, there is continu- ing
conflict, for which another meeting is necessary. In the end,
meetings provide the opportunity fur social intcr- course, to engage in battle
in front of our bosses, to avoid unpleasant or unsatisfying work. to highlight
our social status and identity. They are, in fact, a necessary though not
necessarily productive psychological side- show. Perhaps it is our civiliscd way
of moderating, if not pre- venting, change. Decide whether
these statements are true (√) or false (×), according to the article. The writer believes that meetings are a waste of time and prevent changes being made.